Feedback on &#8220;Path&#8221; and &#8220;A Meaningful Life&#8221;

Feedback on “Veganism: The Path to Animal Liberation”

2001

For the most part, the feedback we received concerning “Veganism: The Path to Animal Liberation” [now titled “Activism
and Veganism Reconsidered”] was positive. However,
there were several comments / questions we want to
address.

To repeat: we wanted to emphasize that tactical
and strategic decisions must be made in our approach(es)
to bringing about a fundamental respect for animals.
Certain tactics are more effective than others, and
some things we choose to do, as a movement and/or
as individuals, ultimately hurt our progression towards
animal liberation.

Related to this is the most common feedback we received
in our survey – namely, that instead of focusing
on either the suppliers or demanders, or choosing
one tactic over another, we need to do everything.
This is a noble sentiment and, on the surface, appears
to be self-evident: how can we not do everything to
help all those suffering? However, it is impossible.

Every time we choose to do one activity, we are
choosing not to do another. No one has the ability
to go to every protest, leaflet every college, write
every letter, give every lecture, volunteer at every
shelter, get arrested at every lab, etc. Every day,
we prioritize our actions: we choose to spend our
energies on one thing over another.

If we were the animal exploiters, our ultimate plan
would be to keep caring, compassionate people focused
only on the immediate and short term: rescuing individual
animals and protesting relatively small-scale cases
of abuse. Since animal advocates have very limited
resources compared to the industries they protest,
compassionate people will never be a threat to the
status quo as long as they fail to address society’s
fundamental attitude toward animals – namely, that
animals exist for humans to use.

Understandably, our big-picture and long-term view
of the issue has brought charges of callousness. People
cannot believe that we would “reduce animal suffering
to a numbers game,” and “turn our backs
on dogs in Taiwan (mice in P&G’s labs, etc.).”
Stating that we should focus on the relatively abstract
and remote (promoting veganism) explicitly at the
expense of the apparent and immediate does seem cold.
Yet the fact remains that every time we choose to
work on something specific, we are “turning our
backs” on other issues – other animals who will
suffer and die due to our inattention.

If a vegan society is required for animal liberation
(and there seems to be no debate on this point), then
not pursuing the most expedient means of bringing
about widespread veganism is creating more suffering.
Until we decide it is more important to bring about
animal liberation than to focus on individual animals,
there will be a never-ending and ever-increasing deluge
of suffering. We must (and do, every day) make a choice:
we can use our resources to help a few animals now,
or hundreds of billions over time, with no more to
follow.

Feedback on “A
Meaningful Life”

2004

There were three main areas of disagreement with
“A Meaningful Life” – the
health argument, building bridges, and
the “trickle-up” theory of advocacy.

There will always be an example of someone coming
to veg from the health side, or the progressive /
environmentalist side, or the trickle-up side. Of
course, though, the question isn’t “Has this
ever worked?” but rather, “Is this the best
use of our limited time and resources?” For all
the work that has been put into the health, progressive,
and trickle-up angles, you would certainly expect
more of a payoff to be visible. But instead, we keep
losing ground.

On the other hand, there hasn’t been any systematic,
widespread effort to present the case against animal
cruelty to our target audience. In 2004, of the tens
of millions of dollars to be spent in animal advocacy,
almost certainly less than $500,000 will be focused
on this approach. It is hard to imagine that any other
half-mil will lead to greater results for the animals.
In our collective decades of activism, there seems
to be no evidence or logical reason to contend that our
time and money is better spent elsewhere.

As for environmentalists and progressives – from
what I’ve seen, animal advocates have wasted nearly
immeasurable resources pursuing “shoulds”
– “This audience should be a great
ally to the animals!” In general, though, progressives
/ activists for other causes have proven to be less
receptive audiences than students in general. Again,
there are exceptions, but I’ve never seen any logical
analysis that shows time and resources are better spent
somewhere other than presenting animal cruelty to
students.